ECT Are you a Darby follower?

[john w]

I am a follower of Tet Nelson Elestai.

It's easy: Half the Bible was fulfilled in 70ad. The other half was fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

And, the "TetTet Nelson Elestai" belief system, is true, obviously Mayor, not an "invention," "theory," because:

-Telalie learned it from infallible men, and,..

-He was never taught "AD 70-ism," Preterism, from "following men," as no one taught him it, as it is straight from the bible.



We are all, obviously, in denial, and cannot answer any of Craigie's questions, as no one, in the history of the world, can answer him, except for Josephus, Bertrand, Wikipedia.


Come to think of it, Mayor....Why are you in denial, embarrassed, afraid to answer any of Tellalie's questions, like everyone else, in the universe? Don't you believe the bible/"Jesus"/Paul/Peter?


How did I do?

 

[john w]

Timothy 2:2 KJV

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


It is quite irrelevant, how, and when, one learns objective truth, learns the veracity of (fill in the blank of any doctrine), whether it is through Darby, some teacher/preacher you saw, after you had a few hits on a bong/Miller Lite's, on late night TV, who conveyed a true doctrine, even if that teacher/preacher, later relapsed into taking drugs, or chasing hookers, or.....or whether you learned it from the back of a "Captain Crunch" cereal box, just yesterday, or from "Sponge Bob," and/or Tellalie's cousin, "Patrick," the jellyfish, or through the Mayor of TOL, that MAD wacko STP, who has a proclivity(like that word?), to always "talk about sin," like Barney Fife...........

Acts 13:1 KJV

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.


Galatians 6:6 KJV

Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Ephesians 4:11KJV

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;


1 Timothy 1:3 KJV

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,


1 Timothy 4:11 KJV

These things command and [U]teach[/U].

1 Timothy 6:3 KJV

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;


1 Timothy 2:2 KJV

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.




Romans 12:7 KJV

or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;


1 Corinthians 12:28 KJV

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Acts 15:35 KJV

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.




Acts 18:11 KJV

And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.


2 Timothy 2:24 KJV

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,


Titus 2:3 KJV

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;


I know, I know....You are in denial, you "cherry picker/bible stripper," John W....We will pray for you....


Cricket...cricket...cricket...And the beat goes on... La de da de de, la de da de da.................

 

[Nick M]

How can the Roman conquest at 70 AD be literal in terms of prophecy, but nothing else is?

 

[musterion]

How can the Roman conquest at 70 AD be literal in terms of prophecy, but nothing else is?

Because it's the only card he has to play.

 

[Interplanner]

Always read the material in the most ordinary sense possible. In Lk 19, the nouns used were implanted into the septuagint for the Jeremiah passage; Roman military nouns were implanted. Obviously, you would then conclude Jesus was referring to Roman warfare and legions while saying that the Jeremiah passage was being fulfilled.

To turn the table further, why do you think it is 'literal' to read the first questions of Mt 24 or the timestamps of Rev 1 as auto-referring to modern times? How is that literal? Did he say 'jump 2000 years' as I say this--don't be concerned about your life and families? Not at all.

 

[HisServant]

Next, you'll be saying "Dispensationalists are part of the Illuminati."

The illuminati are way smarter than dispys.

 

[Danoh]

Always read the material in the most ordinary sense possible. In Lk 19, the nouns used were implanted into the septuagint for the Jeremiah passage; Roman military nouns were implanted. Obviously, you would then conclude Jesus was referring to Roman warfare and legions while saying that the Jeremiah passage was being fulfilled.

To turn the table further, why do you think it is 'literal' to read the first questions of Mt 24 or the timestamps of Rev 1 as auto-referring to modern times? How is that literal? Did he say 'jump 2000 years' as I say this--don't be concerned about your life and families? Not at all.

Your over reliance on the resulting traditions of men in their incompetence has you as blind to the obvious as Israel ended up.

Because Moses had prophesied the Christ to his (Moses') and Joshua's generation; the Israel of Matthew thru Acts had long since ceased to believe His prophesied coming was true, let alone, might happen in their generation, some several thousand years later.

An unbelief they continued in after His dbr and ascension...

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

That's you and your books inspired wording and notions not your own - your "materials" and "time stamp" parroting.

The basketball game stops its clock during an intermission, you and yours take it on yourselves to fill that "time slot" in with notions of "who won."

What a mess...

 

[john w]

How can the Roman conquest at 70 AD be literal in terms of prophecy, but nothing else is?

Because you are a Darby follower, brother Nick the great. You are in denial.

 

[john w]

Because it's the only card he has to play.

And you, too, musty. Don't you believe the bible?

How did I do, in the "Tellalie Shut Down Closes" death knell stumpers?

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
Because Moses had prophesied the Christ to his (Moses') and Joshua's generation; the Israel of Matthew thru Acts had long since ceased to believe His prophesied coming was true, let alone, might happen in their generation, some several thousand years later.

Had long since: since what?
Ceased to believe: Not. Jn 12:34.
True: True to what? True as being a theocracy? True as a Gospel of suffering for atonement?
Their generation: both Caiaphas and Josephus considered it to be coming true shortly. Caiaphas thought he could circumvent God's will.
What outside source is telling you that Moses reference to Christ then was for several thousand (really 1-2) later and not believed?

You are hardly clear. Please work on your grammar, for ex., a semi-colon separating non-complete sentences.

I have asked many times if some people here thought 2 Pet 3:4's coming was the first or second. I now see you thought it was the first all along. Any takers--when Peter is off to the races with answers about the 2nd?

there is no suspended clock, except the delay of the 2nd coming--or the Father's option to return at the latest of the 4 options, Mk 13's parable.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
Because Moses had prophesied the Christ to his (Moses') and Joshua's generation; the Israel of Matthew thru Acts had long since ceased to believe His prophesied coming was true, let alone, might happen in their generation, some several thousand years later.

Had long since: since what?
Ceased to believe: Not. Jn 12:34.
True: True to what? True as being a theocracy? True as a Gospel of suffering for atonement?
Their generation: both Caiaphas and Josephus considered it to be coming true shortly. Caiaphas thought he could circumvent God's will.
What outside source is telling you that Moses reference to Christ then was for several thousand (really 1-2) later and not believed?

You are hardly clear. Please work on your grammar, for ex., a semi-colon separating non-complete sentences.

I have asked many times if some people here thought 2 Pet 3:4's coming was the first or second. I now see you thought it was the first all along. Any takers--when Peter is off to the races with answers about the 2nd?

there is no suspended clock, except the delay of the 2nd coming--or the Father's option to return at the latest of the 4 options, Mk 13's parable.

Lol - there you go again.

I hold that Peter is talking about the 2nd, not about the 1st Coming.

It is the scoffers he is predicting who will hold He never came.

Duh-uh.

 

[whitestone]

Always read the material in the most ordinary sense possible. In Lk 19, the nouns used were implanted into the septuagint for the Jeremiah passage; Roman military nouns were implanted. Obviously, you would then conclude Jesus was referring to Roman warfare and legions while saying that the Jeremiah passage was being fulfilled.

To turn the table further, why do you think it is 'literal' to read the first questions of Mt 24 or the timestamps of Rev 1 as auto-referring to modern times? How is that literal? Did he say 'jump 2000 years' as I say this--don't be concerned about your life and families? Not at all.

in Matthew 24:3 KJV the three things they were asking? what do you see when you read that scripture?

Not that I intend to argue,it's apparent people see it different but what do you see them asking?

 

[Totton Linnet]

What do you mean "secret" rapture? You mean the catching away of the Body of Christ being an unrevealed secret before it was revealed through Paul? If that's what you mean by "secret" rapture, then more MADs than not are very much looking forward it. Perhaps you meant something else but I can't recall ever hearing the phrase 'secret rapture' anywhere.

No

Darby taught that Christ will come secretly, only those awaiting for Him will go


We believe every eye shall see Him

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And, the "TetTet Nelson Elestai" belief system, is true, obviously Mayor, not an "invention," "theory," because:

-Telalie learned it from infallible men, and,..

-He was never taught "AD 70-ism," Preterism, from "following men," as no one taught him it, as it is straight from the bible.



We are all, obviously, in denial, and cannot answer any of Craigie's questions, as no one, in the history of the world, can answer him, except for Josephus, Bertrand, Wikipedia.


Come to think of it, Mayor....Why are you in denial, embarrassed, afraid to answer any of Tellalie's questions, like everyone else, in the universe? Don't you believe the bible/"Jesus"/Paul/Peter?


How did I do?

Why don't you believe Paul?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Darby was a Dispensationalist not a Mid Acts Dispensationalist.

Dispensations have ALWAYS been taught in the church. The word commonly used is Economies.

Everytime there is a new covenant there is a new dispensation...simple as that.

 

[HisServant]

Darby was a Dispensationalist not a Mid Acts Dispensationalist.

Dispensations have ALWAYS been taught in the church. The word commonly used is Economies.

Everytime there is a new covenant there is a new dispensation...simple as that.

Dispensations were never taught in the church till the 1700's... ever.


There are only two covenants that matter, the Old and the New... and they do not conform to the rules that dispensationalists apply to a dispensation.

Man was not tested at the end of each dispensation and then changed his mind based on man's actions.

Salvation has ALWAYS been through FAITH, whether it be Abraham or New Christians.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

By faith

vs

Through faith

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This thread topic is like saying "I don't think like a Modernist because I've can't even pronounce Descartes, much less the fact that I've never even heard of him."

I have more respect for someone if they at least know the origins of doctrines they adhere to for whatever reason (including "because it just feels right", etc.).

Dispensationalists should embrace Darby and Irving and Scofield, etc. And they should know the history of their own Eschatology AND all others, and should have some idea of how Eschatology affects hermeneutics for biblical interpretation.

I was a Dispensationlist for decades. Once I actually spent time learning all forms of Eschatology, I had to dismiss it (and all its originators and proponents) as Christ-denying false doctrine by Modernist Charlatans.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Dispies should be more ontological.

 

[john w]

Why don't you believe Paul?

Er, yes, I do. What Paul says "speaks for itself." Craigie taught me that shut down,debate ender, also.

You're in denial.